Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology

[Michael Mozina]

Religion is mysticism, its sole source is internal. It's not falsifiable, and the existence of a god cannot be proven. When you think about it, it's almost as if science had been developed to correct the mistakes of religion.

Guth's sole source of inspiration for "inflation" was also "internal", it can't be falsified, and it lacks every bit as much empiricial support as "god did it.". The only thing that give the idea any credibility at all is the math. It's just like numerology.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Guth's sole source of inspiration for "inflation" was also "internal", it can't be falsified, and it lacks every bit as much empiricial support as "god did it.". The only thing that give the idea any credibility at all is the math. It's just like numerology.

So, is there any proof for that idea? Or is it still solely in the minds of the adherents? Is it provable, testable, and coherent or is it faith and wishful thinking?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Guth's sole source of inspiration for "inflation" was also "internal", it can't be falsified, and it lacks every bit as much empiricial support as "god did it.". The only thing that give the idea any credibility at all is the math. It's just like numerology.

Nonsense! You may regard inflation to be a speculative theory, but it is a far cry from religion.
Inflation is based on astronomical observations using our best instruments and the mathematics of GR. As such, it is constantly under scrutiny by its adherents as better observational technology is developed and is the subject of mathematical analysis as the mathematics of GR is continually analyzed. It could be overturned in time by a demonstrably superior theory.
In contrast Lutheranism, for example, has a static set of beliefs that are not questioned and are not under scrutiny by its adherents.
The fact that you do not find the evidence for inflation convincing does not make it religion. I suggest you try to be less emotional and more analytic in forming your opinions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nonsense! You may regard inflation to be a speculative theory, but it is a far cry from religion.

Baloney! It's exactly like religion and it came from human imagination. I can even name the human being that made it up. It has *ZILCH* in the way of empirical support like any good "god did it" explanation.

Inflation is based on astronomical observations using our best instruments and the mathematics of GR.

All that tells us is that the universe is expanding at best. It doesn't tells us "god did it" or "inflation did it" either.

As such, it is constantly under scrutiny by its adherents as better observational technology is developed and is the subject of mathematical analysis as the mathematics of GR is continually analyzed.

Inflation and DE are to GR what invisible elephants are to MHD theory. You're stuffing a perfectly good physics theory with metaphysical garbage.

It could be overturned in time by a demonstrably superior theory.

Anything is superior to "my invisible friend did it".

In contrast Lutheranism, for example, has a static set of beliefs that are not questioned and are not under scrutiny by its adherents.

I grew up a Lutheran. I was perfectly capable of questioning that belief systems and rejecting it too. Everyone is *capable* of questioning anything and everything, but few individuals do so.

The fact that you do not find the evidence for inflation convincing does not make it religion.

Your inflation has exactly the same empirical effect as the Lutheran god, and I reject it for exactly the same reason I reject other beliefs that lack empirical support. The only difference between inflation religion and any other religion is fancy mathematical window dressing. It's exactly like numerology in that it attempts to gain credibility with artificial mathematical lipstick on a big fat metaphysical pig.

I suggest you try to be less emotional and more analytic in forming your opinions.

I am rejecting all metaphysical forms of religion. Your goofy inflation is not any different than any other religion. In fact I can even tell you who started that particular religion and I can tell you who his first few "followers" were too. We have to take the whole concept on faith of course because like any dead deistic religion, inflation is now dead and gone and we can't make it do anything to anything anymore. Inflation is a dead deistic metaphysical religion with numerology like window dressing, nothing more. It's your own emotion, and desire to cling to dogma that keeps you from seeing that empirical truth. Inflation doesn't have any effect on you whatsoever. It's all in your mind.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, is there any proof for that idea?

Absolutely. Your "inflation did it" dogma is no better than my made up religion based on "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter". It's purely an ad hoc creation in utter lack of empirical support.

In short you can't demonstrate that "inflation did it" anymore than I can demonstrate "God did it" by pilfering your same trumped up math.

Or is it still solely in the minds of the adherents?

Inflation is soley in the mind of the adherents because nobody is influenced by inflation. Nothing runs on inflation. Inflation doesn't even presumably exist. It's actually a really pathetic dead deistic religion that is powerless today.

Is it provable, testable, and coherent or is it faith and wishful thinking?

So let's you and I point at the sky, slap the same math to "Godflation" and "inflation" and you tell me the empirical difference between them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

To Athon

Well, it seems we do not agree on some aspects of how scientists work. I can put a finger on one basic difference between our views. My impression is that you stick to a more idealist view of science (I don't see major disagreement between us on the definition of science and the way it works) while I am talking on the less elegant and admirable practice of it.

I think you touched upon an important issue. "Attitude" tends to have a lot to do with one's "belief" in something or lack thereof. A lot of skeptics are used to questioning "religion", but they hold an "idealized view" of how science actually works. They presume it to be "accurate" unless proven wrong. It's more or less the opposite approach of how most skeptics treat religion.

Inflation is every bit as "dogmatic" as any deistic brand of religion. It enjoys no empirical support and we cannot physically distinguish between "Godflation' and "inflation" using exactly the same "point at the sky and add math exercises." Oddly enough, only two "creation mythologies" require "faster that light expansion", "creationism" and "Lambda-CDM theory". Pure coincidence?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Before SR, there was a widespread belief among physicists in "the aether" as the medium for electromagnetic waves. Would you regard that as religion or simply an attempted explanation for observations -- one that was eventually rejected -- as inflation could be?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Before SR, there was a widespread belief among physicists in "the aether" as the medium for electromagnetic waves. Would you regard that as religion or simply an attempted explanation for observations -- one that was eventually rejected -- as inflation could be?

An "aether" composed of what exactly? I suppose my answer depends on what you're proposing the aether to be made of. QM proposes all sorts of aetheric subatomic particles like gravitons, etc. I personally however tend to prefer a GR oriented "explanation" of gravity over that particular concept in QM.

 

[Perpetual Student]

An "aether" composed of what exactly? I suppose my answer depends on what you're proposing the aether to be made of. QM proposes all sorts of aetheric subatomic particles like gravitons, etc. I personally however tend to prefer a GR oriented "explanation" of gravity over that particular concept in QM.

I am referring to this:

Luminiferious Aether

 

[Michael Mozina]

Before SR, there was a widespread belief among physicists in "the aether" as the medium for electromagnetic waves. Would you regard that as religion or simply an attempted explanation for observations -- one that was eventually rejected -- as inflation could be?

Well, both inflation theory and the aether theories that you mention lack empirical support. In that sense they are both likely to be replaced sooner or later IMO.

I don't believe (I could be mistaken) that aether theories reached the level of "dogma" that say inflation or "dark energy" now enjoys. I think there were always alternatives on the table that were seriously being considered in relationship to photons as particles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The aether theory was quite prevalent in its time. It was an attempt to explain physical phenomena (the wave behavior of light), not unlike dark matter, which is hypothesized to explain galactic structure. Both are as far from religion as you are from rationality.

Unlike the presumed aether, inflation doesn't even exist anymore. The aether idea was a physically testable idea on Earth, whereas inflation dogma is not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Both are as far from religion as you are from rationality.

You're the one claiming that only 4% of the universe is made of identified materials, and 96% of the universe is "dark". You believe in non existent inflation thingies, dark energies and exotic, made up forms of matter, and you think that *I* am far from rational? Hoy.

 

[Tubbythin]

You're the one claiming that only 4% of the universe is made of identified materials, and 96% of the universe is "dark". You believe in non existent inflation thingies, dark energies and exotic, made up forms of matter, and you think that *I* am far from rational? Hoy.

Wrong. Cosmologists are claiming that General Relativity is very very good descriptor of gravity (based on literally hundreds and hundreds of pieces of evidence) and that there is not enough visible matter to account for observations of the universe's structure (based on hundreds and hundreds of pieces of evidence). Your rejecting one or both of these because they don't agree with your preconceived ideas of what the universe should be like. Therefore you are the one throughly bound in an irrational world of dogma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong. Cosmologists are claiming that General Relativity is very very good descriptor of gravity

That's fine until you start to stuff "invisible stuff" into GR theory.

(based on literally hundreds and hundreds of pieces of evidence) and that there is not enough visible matter to account for observations of the universe's structure (based on hundreds and hundreds of pieces of evidence).

So you can't account for all the mass of a distant galaxy. So what? Given our limited technologies, that's hardly surprising. We can't even pick out individual star in galaxies that are millions of not billions of light years away. When I was back in college we understood the limits of out technologies (and they were more limited than today). You however are professing to have things *SO* figured out, you profess to know how much "non baryonic dark matter" there is in any given galaxy. You profess to know that 70+ percent of the universe is made of something never seen on Earth. Please...

Do you have any idea how unbelievable that all sounds at this point, especially having watched all the metaphysical friends being added to GR theory over the years?

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe gravity isn't the most important thing in the universe and that maybe, just maybe, that "non baryonic matter" is composed of electrons and other things things that we do find on Earth?

Your rejecting one or both of these because they don't agree with your preconceived ideas of what the universe should be like.

I reject your dogma for the exact same reason that I reject other religious beliefs, namely a complete lack of empirical evidence to support your particular brand of"faith" in something "unseen". Now of course if you could get 'inflation' or "dark energy' to show up in a lab, I'd be more than happy to "test" your beliefs. Since I can't do that, (inflation is dead you know), I have to simply categorize your "faith" as brand of "dead deism". That's pretty much that lowest of the low in terms of useless religions.

Therefore you are the one throughly bound in an irrational world of dogma.

In the "real" world of "real physics", yes, there are some reasonable boundaries. I can't simply "make up" things as I go like Guth, including new exotic forms of energy and negative pressure vacuums and all sorts of ad hoc baloney. In the real world of actual physics, yes I prefer "electromagnetic acceleration" to "dark energy" if we're trying to explain "acceleration" of a mostly plasma universe.

Empirical physics is limited, but it managed to produce the computer I'm using, the lights in my house, the useful products I find at Walmart, etc. What I never see at the store is anything made of inflation (nor could that ever happen), or anything that runs on "dark energy". For something that is supposedly tens of times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard, your dark energy seems pretty impotent on the level of actual useful physics. It's definitely a "no show" at the mall.

When you get dark energy to move even a single ion, let me know. Until then, the most obvious reason for the acceleration of plasma is the EM field and Birkeland already tested that theory 100 years ago *IN THE LAB*.

 

[Tubbythin]

That's fine until you start to stuff "invisible stuff" into GR theory.

I'm not stuffing anything into GR.

So you can't account for all the mass of a distant galaxy. So what? Given our limited technologies, that's hardly surprising.

No. We can't account for the mass in ANY galaxy. Including our own and Andromeda. And we can't account for the rotation curves of the galaxies. And we can't account for the rotation curves of galaxy clusters.

We can't even pick out individual star in galaxies that are millions of not billions of light years away. When I was back in college we understood the limits of out technologies (and they were more limited than today).

Astronomers understand the limits of their technologies better than you do. They will have had 6+ years of training. What on Earth makes you think you understand their equipment better than they do?

You however are professing to have things *SO* figured out, you profess to know how much "non baryonic dark matter" there is in any given galaxy.

To within a factor of 60 certainly.

You profess to know that 70+ percent of the universe is made of something never seen on Earth. Please...

54 years ago we'd never seen a neutrino. Doesn't mean they didn't exist. Doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to 1956.

Do you have any idea how unbelievable that all sounds at this point,

I find the fact that we're having this argument AGAIN unbelievable. You've started the same argument on 6 or 7 threads now. Its been found wanting in every single one of them. Its trolling.

especially having watched all the metaphysical friends being added to GR theory over the years?

There are no metaphysical friends in GR. None whatsoever.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe gravity isn't the most important thing in the universe

Do you have any clue what charge shielding is?

and that maybe, just maybe, that "non baryonic matter" is composed of electrons and other things things that we do find on Earth?

I cannot think of a worse candidate for dark matter than electrons. Seriously. The non baryonic matter is dark. Electrons interact through the electromagnetic interaction. They Thompson scatter, they Compton scatter, they're light so are accelerated easily leading to Bremsstrahlung. Their interactions are well understood by the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics. How on Earth could electrons possibly be dark?

I reject your dogma for the exact same reason that I reject other religious beliefs, namely a complete lack of empirical evidence to support your particular brand of"faith" in something "unseen".

Its not dogma. I can support my "beliefs". I can point you to countless papers describing the properties of dark matter. You on the other hand think it must be electrons because of your dogma. Even though electrons are one of the easiest things to detect in the whole Universe and (other than having a mass) have precisely 0 properties in common with that needed to reproduce the dark matter observations. Your claims of dogma are absolutely hilarious.

Now of course if you could get 'inflation' or "dark energy' to show up in a lab, I'd be more than happy to "test" your beliefs.

Why would I want you to test them? You seem to lack understanding of really basic physics - like the fact that electrons interact with electromagnetic radiation and therefore cannot possibly constitute dark matter. You also seem to think you understand equipment you've never used or probably even seen better than those who have been using for the large proportions of their working life.

Since I can't do that, (inflation is dead you know),

Gibberish. Inflation was never "alive".

I have to simply categorize your "faith" as brand of "dead deism".

You can categorize it however you wish. I'd probably call myself a sceptical agnostic. My belief that electrons are not dark matter, however, is backed up by thousands upon thousands upon thousands of experiments. Including some of the most precisely tested in the history of physics. It doesn't get much less dogmatic than that.

That's pretty much that lowest of the low in terms of useless religions.

Now you're just mumbling incoherently.

In the "real" world of "real physics", yes, there are some reasonable boundaries. I can't simply "make up" things as I go like Guth, including new exotic forms of energy and negative pressure vacuums and all sorts of ad hoc baloney.

The Casimir effect was known before inflation. Do we really have to go all the way back to that thread where you conclusively showed you were incapable of even defining pressure? Or even understanding the definition of "definition"?

In the real world of actual physics, yes I prefer "electromagnetic acceleration" to "dark energy" if we're trying to explain "acceleration" of a mostly plasma universe.

Trouble is:
1) The Universe isn't mostly plasma.
2) Something called charge screening exists for the EM force.
These categorically rule out electromagnetism having a role on cosmological scales.

Empirical physics is limited, but it managed to produce the computer I'm using, the lights in my house, the useful products I find at Walmart, etc. What I never see at the store is anything made of inflation (nor could that ever happen), or anything that runs on "dark energy".

So. I don't see anything that runs on neutrinos either. I can do a quick calculation to show you how many neutrinos are emitted by the Sun every second if you wish. They're still of little practical use in Walmart.
Basically your argument is that something of no practical use cannot exist. That would imply a Universe designed for practical use by us. hat would be an excellent argument for the existence of God. Trouble is it has no foundation in reality. There is no reason whatsoever that something of no practical use to humans cannot exist. You above "argument" is thus rendered completely and utterly pointless.

For something that is supposedly tens of times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard, your dark energy seems pretty impotent on the level of actual useful physics. It's definitely a "no show" at the mall.

Its not important on the scale of our day to day musings. So what? Its utterly irrelevant to the case for its existence. That stands or falls on the evidence supporting or denying its existence. And unless you can produce a quantitative theory that accounts for the observed accelerated expansion of the Universe then you're just talking irrelevant garbage about your local supermarket. I'm not sure which forum is most appropriate here. I don't think JREF is the right place though. I'm certainly never noticed a "Mindless Mumblings About What I Can Pick Up In My Local Supermarket" forum.

When you get dark energy to move even a single ion, let me know.

It appears to be moving the entire Universe. Unless of course you've got a better quantitative explanation for the observational evidence.

Until then, the most obvious reason for the acceleration of plasma is the EM field and Birkeland already tested that theory 100 years ago *IN THE LAB*.

So what? The fact that he tested it in a lab means the results are likely to have little significance on cosmological scales.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Unlike the presumed aether, inflation doesn't even exist anymore. The aether idea was a physically testable idea on Earth, whereas inflation dogma is not.

Is evolution "testable on earth"? Evolution is a theory to explain the variety and origins of life on earth and inflation is a theory to explain astronomical observations and the evolution of the universe, nothing more. Observational evidence support both theories. Just like modern genetics has provided corroborative evidence for evolution, modern measurements of the CMB have provided corroborative evidence for inflation.
I do agree that our ability to examine biological mechanisms in great detail far exceeds our ability to examine the origins and history of the universe, which makes inflation a weaker theory. Nevertheless, without a convincing alternative, inflation remains our best theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not stuffing anything into GR.

Great. No "non baryonic dark stuff", no "dark energy". Inflation? Forgetaboutit.

No. We can't account for the mass in ANY galaxy. Including our own and Andromeda. And we can't account for the rotation curves of the galaxies. And we can't account for the rotation curves of galaxy clusters.

So there is mass out there which we cannot account for. What makes you think any of it is contained in exotic forms of matter?

Astronomers understand the limits of their technologies better than you do. They will have had 6+ years of training. What on Earth makes you think you understand their equipment better than they do?

It is not their 'equipment' that I question, it is their interpretation of the data I question. The limits of our technology prevent us from even picking out individual stars in distant galaxies, so why on Earth should I be surprise that you folks can't account for all the mass in distant galaxy? What does any of that have to do with "dark energy" the thing you claim makes up 70+ percent of the universe?

To within a factor of 60 certainly.

You may know with a factor of 60 certainly have much "missing mass" you need, but you have no certainty that it's made of of exotic forms of matter.

54 years ago we'd never seen a neutrino. Doesn't mean they didn't exist. Doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to 1956.

You had physical empirical evidence, from real controlled experiments that demonstrated they did exist, or the laws of physics were not laws at all. One of those two things had to have been true. In this case, no such requirement exists. All you know is you have mass you can't account for.

There are no metaphysical friends in GR. None whatsoever.

So your brand of GR theory has a zero constant, just like the one Einstein taught eh?

I cannot think of a worse candidate for dark matter than electrons. Seriously. The non baryonic matter is dark. Electrons interact through the electromagnetic interaction. They Thompson scatter, they Compton scatter, they're light so are accelerated easily leading to Bremsstrahlung. Their interactions are well understood by the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics. How on Earth could electrons possibly be dark?

First of all, I'm not suggesting that any great percentage of your missing mass is found in electrons, it's just that electrons are the largest stable particle of mass that isn't a baryon. Of course they emit light, and we see them do so in solar flare activity every day. You don't believe they're even doing the work, but something is certainly heating plasma to millions of degrees.

Its not dogma. I can support my "beliefs". I can point you to countless papers describing the properties of dark matter.

You can probably point me to countless papers describing the *theoretical* properties of "dark matter", many of them created in a purely ad hoc manner. So what? Show me a physical experiment where they show up in a lab.

You on the other hand think it must be electrons because of your dogma.

My dogma? Sorry, EU theory was around 100 years before I ever heard of the idea. It can't actually be "dogma" because unlike your metaphysical friends, electrons show up in real lab experiments and have been known to heat atmospheric plasma for at least 100 years now. Again, I'm not personally suggesting that all the missing mass is in the form of electrons, I'm simply noting that considering how willfully ignorant your industry seems to be towards current flows in space, it's obvious that at least some small portion of that missing mass is probably located in electrons in space.

Even though electrons are one of the easiest things to detect in the whole Universe

Really? You can count electrons in distant galaxies with current technologies?

and (other than having a mass) have precisely 0 properties in common with that needed to reproduce the dark matter observations. Your claims of dogma are absolutely hilarious.

You mean your strawman was hilarious, but not particularly related to my personal beliefs.

Gibberish. Inflation was never "alive".

It never existed. Guth personally "made it up" in his wild imagination.

You can categorize it however you wish. I'd probably call myself a sceptical agnostic. My belief that electrons are not dark matter, however, is backed up by thousands upon thousands upon thousands of experiments.

FYI, I'm not trying to suggest that electrons have the properties you're personally looking for as it relates to dark matter. I'm simply suggesting your industry intentionally, willfully and consciously downplays the significance of them as it relates to events in space, and you certainly don't account for them accurately.

The Casimir effect was known before inflation.

The Casimir effect has nothing to do with negative pressure in a vacuum, or inflation. It relates to the carrier particle of the EM field, specifically photons. The geometry of the experiment determines the effect, whether attractive or repulsive. None of that in any way justifies your claims.

Do we really have to go all the way back to that thread where you conclusively showed you were incapable of even defining pressure? Or even understanding the definition of "definition"?

I defined it several times for you folks, you simply ignored them all.

Trouble is:
1) The Universe isn't mostly plasma.

Really? What is it "mostly"?

2) Something called charge screening exists for the EM force.

Which has no relevance on this discussion in any way.

These categorically rule out electromagnetism having a role on cosmological scales.

Boloney. The EM field is driving that MILLION MILE PER HOUR SOLAR WIND that keeps flying off the sun in spite of all that "gravity".

So. I don't see anything that runs on neutrinos either.

You can certainly find devices that detect them based on their real effect on real physical objects in controlled experiments. They aren't shy around the lab.

I can do a quick calculation to show you how many neutrinos are emitted by the Sun every second if you wish.

You can only do that because you know where they come from. Compare and contrast that with your mythical forms of matter and energy.

They're still of little practical use in Walmart.

They have a practical use however.

Basically your argument is that something of no practical use cannot exist.

No, it's if they have no empirical effect in a controlled experiment, I have no evidence they do exist.

It appears to be moving the entire Universe. Unless of course you've got a better quantitative explanation for the observational evidence.

Hell, I could simply blatently pilfer your math, call it Godflation, God energy, and God matter and do a better job explaining all the observational evidence in the world, including the observation of a planet full of people that are predominantly theistic throughout recorded human history.

So what? The fact that he tested it in a lab means the results are likely to have little significance on cosmological scales.

That line could easily go down as one of the most ignorant statements in cosmological history.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Obviously, the meeting of force lines was not a fruitful concept. When physicists imagine "unobserved properties," what are they doing? Are they not creating a model to be tested?

That depends. Can it be "tested" in a "controlled" way? If I simply create a label Godflation, assign it properties typically assigned to inflation, how do we "test" for the existence of Godflation based on point at the sky exercises alone?

 

[Tubbythin]

Great. No "non baryonic dark stuff", no "dark energy". Inflation? Forgetaboutit.

GR doesn't gcare less whether the mass is baryonic or non-baryonic. \the cosmological constant is in GR and has been since the early days. From around 1930 to 1997 or thereabout it was assumed to be 0 because there was no evidence of it being something else. Since then we have found evidence of accelerated expansion, suggesting it may not be 0.

So there is mass out there which we cannot account for. What makes you think any of it is contained in exotic forms of matter?

How many times have we been through this? Non-exotic forms of matter radiate and are thus not dark. Machos are ruled out by weak-lensing experiments.

It is not their 'equipment' that I question, it is their interpretation of the data I question.

The same thing applies. Why do you think you know better than the people who do this for a living when you have next to no knowledge of the subject?

The limits of our technology prevent us from even picking out individual stars in distant galaxies, so why on Earth should I be surprise that you folks can't account for all the mass in distant galaxy?

We can't acount for the mass in our own galaxy or Andromeda or in our own local group!

What does any of that have to do with "dark energy" the thing you claim makes up 70+ percent of the universe?

The dark energy is a separate facet of cosmology.

You may know with a factor of 60 certainly have much "missing mass" you need, but you have no certainty that it's made of of exotic forms of matter.

Yes we do. As you've been told many times. We know how normal matter interacts. We know this from those things your so fond of - lab based experiments. No just any lab-based experiments. Some of the most precise lab-tested experiments in physics.

You had physical empirical evidence, from real controlled experiments that demonstrated they did exist, or the laws of physics were not laws at all. One of those two things had to have been true. In this case, no such requirement exists. All you know is you have mass you can't account for.

Sure it does. Either we have non-baryonic dark matter or our theory of gravity is wrong.

So your brand of GR theory has a zero constant, just like the one Einstein taught eh?

Einstein taught it with a cosmo constant. Its just that when evidence was found of Universal expansion it was assumed to be 0. Now we have evidence of accelerated expansion this is no longer assumed. This evidence came around 40 years after Einstein's death. So your appeal to Einstein is completely flawed.

First of all, I'm not suggesting that any great percentage of your missing mass is found in electrons, it's just that electrons are the largest stable particle of mass that isn't a baryon.

So?

Of course they emit light, and we see them do so in solar flare activity every day.

So?

You don't believe they're even doing the work, but something is certainly heating plasma to millions of degrees.

You're mumbling again. This is nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology.

You can probably point me to countless papers describing the *theoretical* properties of "dark matter", many of them created in a purely ad hoc manner.

The properties are deduced from observations from experiments. Just like those of the neutrino.

So what? Show me a physical experiment where they show up in a lab.

Show me a physical experiment prior to 1956 in which a neutrino showed up in a lab.

My dogma? Sorry, EU theory was around 100 years before I ever heard of the idea. It can't actually be "dogma" because unlike your metaphysical friends, electrons show up in real lab experiments and have been known to heat atmospheric plasma for at least 100 years now.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology OR the topic of this thread. Why are you mentioning it. It is as irrelevant as your uniformed opinion on modern science.

Again, I'm not personally suggesting that all the missing mass is in the form of electrons, I'm simply noting that considering how willfully ignorant your industry seems to be towards current flows in space,

What is my industry? How could you possibly know what it is ignorant of?

it's obvious that at least some small portion of that missing mass is probably located in electrons in space.

I'm sorry? Its obvious that some of the missing, non-radiating, dark matter in the Universe is in the form of the most-easily-detected-form-of-matter-by-its-electromagnetic-radiation in the Universe??? How can you not see what a totally absurd, baffling and hilarious statement this is?

Really? You can count electrons in distant galaxies with current technologies?

We can see whether they are there or not!

You mean your strawman was hilarious, but not particularly related to my personal beliefs.

What strawman?

It never existed. Guth personally "made it up" in his wild imagination.

http://xkcd.com/675/

FYI, I'm not trying to suggest that electrons have the properties you're personally looking for as it relates to dark matter. I'm simply suggesting your industry intentionally, willfully and consciously downplays the significance of them as it relates to events in space, and you certainly don't account for them accurately.

You can say what you want. Doesn't make it true.

The Casimir effect has nothing to do with negative pressure in a vacuum, or inflation.

It has everything to do with negative pressure in a vacuum.

It relates to the carrier particle of the EM field, specifically photons. The geometry of the experiment determines the effect, whether attractive or repulsive. None of that in any way justifies your claims.

It was your claim that Guth made-up negative pressure. This, of course, is completely wrong. As demonstrated by the Casimir efect.

I defined it several times for you folks, you simply ignored them all.

You "defined it" using the ideal gas equation. Which of course is not a definition of any sort whatsoever.

Really? What is it "mostly"?

Well its mostly empty space. But in terms of stuff with mass its mostly stuff that doesn't radiate. Ie most definitely not plasma.

Which has no relevance on this discussion in any way.

It has no relevance on how to deal with science is a religion crap I'll agree. It has everything to do with whether the EM force can be responsible for the large scale structure of the Universe.

Boloney. The EM field is driving that MILLION MILE PER HOUR SOLAR WIND that keeps flying off the sun in spite of all that "gravity".

The Sun is of zero cosmological significance. It has a radius of the less than 10⁹m. Galaxy clusters have sizes of ~ 10²³m. That is 14 orders of magnitude larger. Or a factor of a hundred million million. These are also generally considered to be too small to be thought of as cosmological objects. In other words your argument misses the boat by a factor in excess of a hundred million million. That is an absolutely catastrophic fail on your part.

You can certainly find devices that detect them based on their real effect on real physical objects in controlled experiments.

I couldn't prior to 1956. Doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to 1956.

They aren't shy around the lab.

Err. Yes they are. They're very very shy indeed. They typically have a mean free path of a hundred light years of lead! So in less your lab is the equivalent of hundred light years of lead in length then you are completely wrong again. Now, a light year is around 10¹⁶m. A typical lab on the other hand is likely to be about 10 m in length. Meaning, even if your lab happened to be filled with lead you'd still be wrong by a factor of 10¹⁵. Thats a factor of a thousand million million!

You can only do that because you know where they come from. Compare and contrast that with your mythical forms of matter and energy.

And it it shows me exactly how incredibly shy they are. In complete contradiction to your above statement.

They have a practical use however.

You may be correct. Though I can't think of one at the minute. Its irrelevant to the question of whether they exist or not though.

No, it's if they have no empirical effect in a controlled experiment, I have no evidence they do exist.

Dark matter has an empirical effect ina controlled experiment. You don't even need a degree in physics to show that.

Hell, I could simply blatently pilfer your math, call it Godflation, God energy, and God matter and do a better job explaining all the observational evidence in the world, including the observation of a planet full of people that are predominantly theistic throughout recorded human history.

No you couldn't. To do a better explanation you'd need to do it quantitatively. You've just shown everyone how you get this wrong by factors of milillions of millions. I think its very obvious that you couldn't produce any quantitatively reliable theory of cosmology.

That line could easily go down as one of the most ignorant statements in cosmological history.

Nope. The fact that he tested it in a lab means it must have completely missed out gravity in the test. This means its utterly worthless for cosmological considerations.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That depends. Can it be "tested" in a "controlled" way? If I simply create a label Godflation, assign it properties typically assigned to inflation, how do we "test" for the existence of Godflation based on point at the sky exercises alone?

Same old statements; however, I noticed that you avoided responding to this:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Unlike the presumed aether, inflation doesn't even exist anymore. The aether idea was a physically testable idea on Earth, whereas inflation dogma is not.

Is evolution "testable on earth"? Evolution is a theory to explain the variety and origins of life on earth and inflation is a theory to explain astronomical observations and the evolution of the universe, nothing more. Observational evidence support both theories. Just like modern genetics has provided corroborative evidence for evolution, modern measurements of the CMB have provided corroborative evidence for inflation.
I do agree that our ability to examine biological mechanisms in great detail far exceeds our ability to examine the origins and history of the universe, which makes inflation a weaker theory. Nevertheless, without a convincing alternative, inflation remains our best theory.

__________________